The Flood

The super heated water vapor simply cooled on the dark side of the earth above the atmosphere. Because of the lack of atmospheric pressure the water vapor can not exists as ice but exists as chilled water vapor.The bible explains the windows of heaven were opened thus answers the atmosphere was opened not in the way to molecularly reheat the chilled water vapor that was returning to the earth as rain, ice, snow, etc...Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

While the book of revelations says that the earth will shake such as it has not shaken since its beginning that genesis suggests in the beginning was the earth and heaven created(explains the earlier rapid magnetic reversals).The fossil evidences suggests from this point forward the earth is no older than 11,000 years. However does not the scripture imply that the earth shook before man was on the earth when it was created and it will again (book of revelations). Thus those rapid magnetic reversals expressed before the creationists biblical flood should be expected.There is no reason to believe the earths fossils are not young however would not all these creatures need be created after this initial great shaking event before that great shaking event that scripture says happened before man was on the earth. kjv revelation 16:18.Was the earth shaken before the sun became a star 12,000 years ago or was it on the first creation day when the Lord caused the earth to rise up out of the seas. kjv genesis 1:6.It appears these rapid magnetic reversals are actually evidence of the biblical flood senerio and rapid magnetic reversal previous to the biblical flood to when and how the earth was formed.And God called the dry land EARTH! kjv genesis 1:6.----------------------------------According to the dynamic-decay theory, the true age would be less than that because of extra losses during the reversals and fluctuations. The solid line (labeled "dynamic decay") shows that with a significant loss of energy during the Genesis flood, the age of the field would be about 6000 years.The Institute for Creation Research

A Creationist Theory for Reversals and FluctuationsThe validity of the data required a new theory to explain them. In 1986 I suggested that strong flows of the fluid in the earth's core could produce rapid reversals of the field during and after the Genesis flood.[9] The resulting disturbances in the core would cause the field intensity at the earth's surface to fluctuate up and down for thousands of years afterwards.This "dynamic-decay" theory is a more general version of the free-decay theory, since it takes account of motions in the core fluid. Dynamic decay explains the main features of the data, especially several features evolutionists find puzzling. In 1988, startling new evidence was found for the most essential prediction of my theory--very rapid reversals;[10] and in 1990, I showed a specific physical mechanism for such reversals.[11]ConclusionAt present, the only working theory for the origin, fluctuations, rapid reversals, and decay of the field is a creationist theory--a theory that fits all the data. Thus, according to the best theory and data we have, the earth's magnetic field certainly is less than 100,000 years old; very likely less than 10,000 years old, and fits in well with the face-value Biblical age of 6,000 years.The Institute for Creation Research Yep, Forgot the exact scripture but like a really really powerful earthquake. Heaven and earth its said will be shaken, the earth will shake in orbit like a drunk, all the islands in the oceans will vanish the mountains flattened, etc...

Its said only since Christ birth that the last reversal since the biblical flood. Thus your 6 reversals previous to the present reversal happened in approximately 3 thousand years (figure 1).The Institute for Creation Research How has the pacific ocean shrunk, thought its picture of Christ has not changed much except his weeping expressed expressed by the mid-ocean ridges. kjv Genesis 1:2 as the spirit moved upon the face of the waters. Do you have evidence that the pacific ocean actually shrunk?http://www.spiralupdatenews.com/viewing.htmlThe Atlantic Ocean Plates its believed moved hydraulically quickly however perhaps not as far as some believe, something about africa size not matching up with South America. Presently the plates are presently only drifting in centimeters per year, the biblical flood senerio more correctly expresses the geology of the Atlantic Mid-Ocean ridges. What force do you believe would of pressed the massive amounts of water deep within the earth under the trenches. Its simply not believable that it all happened slowly centimeters a year, water hydraulics, etc....-------------------------------The fundamental problem with most evolutionary explanations of Pangea’s separation comes in their application of uniformitarian principles. Since we see the continents drifting only a few centimeters a year at present, then, according to uniformitarian thinkers, that must be the rate at which they have drifted for millions of years. This explanation fails to account for geologically catastrophic events on a massive scale. In truth, while the continents may have been connected in the past, they did not drift lazily apart over hundreds of millions of years.Pangea and the Flood - Apologetics Press

Where do you think all the sediments covering the fossils came from? Never mind It was caused by the exposing of the mid-ocean ridges which while still malleable its believed to of naturally sprung upwards sucking the trenches inward as the tecktonic plates pressed downward on each side of the mid-ocean ridges the water was sucked under the trenches along the continental land masses.Its simply much easier to contemplate than these plates are being sucked under the continental land masses. Do you realize how much friction it would take for the plates to be sucked under the continental land masses. The tecktonic plates are more likely floating toward the trenches not subducting, etc... It fits better than stretching it out to 4 million years. It called water hyrdraulics something about how water does not compress thus little to no heat being generated under the plates likely how they presently are able to float centimeteres a year without causing excessive earthquakes.You can at times cause an earthquake simply by drawing oil out of the ground but you have entire plates moving centimeters a year. It can only be explained by water hydraulics that the plates are floating not subducting, which explains how they could miles during the biblical flood. That the atlantic plates are moving on a layer of water no problem with the heat involved given the super sonic steam was cooled by the vaccums of space as the fountains of the deep pressed open the windows of heaven.You do believe the super sonic steam erupting out of the earth would be capable of pressing back the atmosphere so that the water canopy above would have no atmosphere as super chilled waters slid inside the erupting waters expressed as rain. Its not much different in principle to how moist humid water rise and super cool downdrafts result alongside the uprising warm waters. With these super cells alined along the 45 thousand miles + of them mid-ocean ridges the entire earth was flooded its said in 40 days at which time its said God closed the fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven. kjv genesis 8:2.P.S. I don't have all the answers but unfortunately if they exists its highly doubtful you will find answers to all your question at geology 101. Unfortunately doubt creationists have all the answers but because like you said all you will have in some instances is hypothesis not necessarily answers. I find that interesting as I find some of your hypothesis interesting though doubtful too, etc...Creationists too have their hypothesis and it does appear to me its an young earth. I just can not accept the plates are being sucked inward because the mid-ocean ridges are rising. If the mid-ocean ridges are rising is more water being sucked inward in part causing he tecktonic plates to slide toward the trenches centimeters per year. With all this friction from your theory how is it even possible for the plates to move at all, surely you see the problem with your tecktonic plate theory. Perhaps not, but the friction problem goes both ways, etc...

Last I heard they had not yet looked under the crust, all they find as they drill deeper and deeper into the crust is fractured rock and water, and guess what the Word says, that the fountains of the deep were all broken up. Funny thing is that when you look deeper and deeper into the earth all you find is evidence supporting the inerrancy of the Word. Seriously you surely know the earth fossils only supports a young earth, your index fossils you use to date magnetic reversals are bogus because no new elements formed since the earth was created, meaning the elements were created pre-earth.Its a scam by the evolutionists to pretend the magnetic reversals happened over millions of years when they really have nothing to prove anything.You know index fossil proves radioactive dating and radioactive dating proves index fossils, which simply proves the paleontologists are full of it(the circle game), etc.... If you get the chance check out Walt Browns hydroplate theory you will gain a better understanding of how the mid-ocean ridges formed suddenly.
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.Edited by Charley, : No reason given.Edited by Charley, : No reason given.Edited by Charley, : No reason given.Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

Are you talking about Humphreys? Surely you realize creationists are discredited because they dare to believe in an young earth because of the fossil evidences. Just because you believe they are discredited does not discredit their hypothesis, perhaps in your mind it does but thats not evidence. Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

I don't know what Barnes measured but Humpreys estimating the field intensity everywhere (in, on, and above the earth), we can calculate the total electrical "energy" stored in the field.------------------------------The average "intensity" of the earth's magnetic field has decreased exponentially by about 7% since its first careful measurement in 1829.[1] The field's intensity includes components of strength and direction and tells us the amount of force turning a compass needle northward. By estimating the field intensity everywhere (in, on, and above the earth), we can calculate the total electrical "energy" stored in the field. Such calculations show that the total energy in the field has decreased by about 14% since 1829.The Institute for Creation Research

He might of seen it as evidence from the rapid reversal due to the external forces that started the reversals were more energetic. But to the uniformitarists the flood never happened thus they disclude the trigger and assume a spontaneous process. It appears you agree with Humphreys for the past century and concludes that the dipole energy has fallen off more rapidly than the off-dipole terms.----------------------------------------The answer, quite frankly, is not much at all. Humphreys seems to think it is of some importance. He spends much time calculating the energies of the dipole and off-dipole terms (octupole, quadrupolar and higher order terms) for the past century and concludes that the dipole energy has fallen off more rapidly than the off-dipole terms. I don't dispute this, but do dispute the conclusions reached by Humphreys that this observation has anything whatsoever to do with the age of the earth.Is the Earth I thought the reversals are cast in stone sort of you know, the problem might well be was there a causation as suggested by a Richard Muller that geomagnetic reversals are not spontaneous processes but triggered by external events which disrupts the flow in the Earths core. It appears to me this is more the premise of Humphreys that the takes into account catastrophic events in the Earths past, such as the biblical flood. If the earth gets shaken again will that reset the magnetic strengths and cause a new round of magnetic reversals."If" Muller is right its more about external events that triggers them magnetic reversals and not necessarily a spontaneous process that can only be explained by an old earth. The Creationists believe the biblical flood was a catastrophic event that triggered some of the magnetic reversals and then by squeezing the data for the last 5,000 years you would tend to get a curve such as expressed by Humphreys.The uniformitarnists likely will they not date the index fossils by radioisotope dating methods and verify radioisotope dating methods by the index fossils which is it not a bit circular for them to say index fossil is proof that the magnetic reversals are old.The uniformitanists beliefs in an old earth is like weighing a fly on a truck scale making this kind of circular reasoning meaningless when the fly is them index fossils.-------------------------------The Earth's magnetic north pole is drifting from northern Canada towards Siberia with a presently accelerating rate -- 10km per year at the beginning of the 20th century, up to 40km per year in 2003.[2] It is also unknown if this drift will continue to accelerate.A minority opinion, held by such figures as Richard A. Muller, is that geomagnetic reversals are not spontaneous processes but rather triggered by external events which directly disrupt the flow in the Earth's core. Such processes may include the arrival of continental slabs carried down into the mantle by the action of plate tectonics at subduction zones, the initiation of new mantle plumes from the core-mantle boundary, and possibly mantle-core shear forces resulting from very large impact events.Geomagnetic reversal - WikipediaEdited by Charley, : No reason given.

Its called water hydraulics due waters incompressability even with miles of rocks above its still able to hydraulically press the particles apart.
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

This poster is a troll and does not engage in rational or honest debate. Answer at the risk of wasting your time. The bible in respect to the flood says the fountains of the deep have been all broken up and interestingly this is in fact whats been documented when drilling deep within the earth.----------------------------------------To scientists, one of the more fascinating findings to emerge from this well is that the change in seismic velocities was not found at a boundary marking Jeffreys' hypothetical transition from granite to basalt; it was at the bottom of a layer of metamorphic rock that extended from about 5 to 10 kilometers beneath the surface. The rock there had been thoroughly fractured and was saturated with water, which was surprising. This water, which unlike surface water must have come from deep-crust minerals, had been unable to reach the surface because of a layer of impermeable rock.Kola Superdeep Borehole - WikipediaEdited by AdminNosy, : to provide warning

Funny thing I started out an OEC flood advocate but because of the lack of evidence here at EVC started debating as an YEC.Its kind of funny there is such a lack of evidence supporting an old earth and sometimes feel like I'm the spider and the evolutionists the fly.I don't mean to but everything is so circular that no matter what the evolutionists says, it only feeds a young earth, the world flood.I've apparently outgrown EVC and agree its futile to debate because for some reason I've become the spider and the evolutionists the fly.Perhaps a troll is someone that simply outgrows the debate and it truely is futile for both the spider and the fly.Wish you all well in Christ,CharleyP.S. I'd like to thank Ned for his support in keeping the bulk of them evolutionists from hounding me this last year with his warnings and such. Perhaps I'll find some time now to read the bible given how much you all got my nose into it to support the scriptures. It was better than most bible studies given the other Christians here's input in respect to the scriptures.